Standing Committee G

Part I]

[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]

Education Bill

Stephen Timms: I beg to move,
 That the Order of the Committee [11th December] relating to programming as amended by the Order of the Committee [13th December] be amended as follows—
 in paragraph (1) ''Thursdays at five minutes to Ten o'clock'' is omitted and ''Thursdays at half-past Nine o'clock'' is inserted; in paragraph (4) after ''time'' there is inserted ''or times''; in sub-paragraph (5) ''on any earlier sitting'' is omitted and ''at any earlier time'' is inserted; in the Table the entries for the 6th to 16th sittings are omitted and the following words inserted: 
  6th(afternoon)Clauses 13 to 177 p.m. 6th(evening)Clause 18, Schedule 1, Clauses 19 to 249.55 p.m. 7thClauses 25 to 35, Schedule 2, Clauses 36 to 38, Schedule 31 p.m. 8thClauses 39 to 437 p.m. 9thClauses 44 to 48, Schedule 4, Clause 49, Clause 50 11.25 a.m. 10thClauses 51 to 53, Schedule 5, Clauses 54 to 56, Schedule 6, Clauses 57 to 615 p.m. 11thClauses 62 to 65, Schedule 7, Clause 66, Clause 67, Schedule 8, Clause 68, Schedule 9, Clauses 69 to 71, Schedule 101 p.m. 12thClause 72, Clause 93, Clause 73, Clause 94, Clauses 74 to 76, Clauses 95 to 97, Clause 77, Clause 79, Clause 98, Clause 100, Clause 85, Clause 106, Clause 78, Clause 99, Clause 80, Clause 101, Clause 81, Clause 82, Clause 102, Clause 103, Clause 83, Clause 84, Clause 104, Clause 105, Clauses 86 to 91, Clauses 107 to 112, Clause 92, Clause 113, Clause 1147 p.m. 13thClauses 115 to 126, Schedule 12, Clauses 127 to 131 11.25 a.m. 14thClauses 132 to 144, Schedule 135 p.m. 15thClauses 145 to 148, Schedule 14, Clauses 149 to 151, Schedule 15, Clause 1521 p.m. 16th Clauses 153 to 1707 p.m.
 I welcome you to the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Griffiths. The resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee, which met after our deliberations this morning, has been circulated. It proposes that we reach clause 17 by 7 pm and clause 24 by 9.55 pm and then makes further changes to reflect that proposal. We have responded to the concern that has been expressed repeatedly that more time is needed for the early part of the Bill. I urge the Committee to support the motion. 
Mr. Graham BradyÌ (Altrincham and Sale, West): I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, after ''Clauses 13 to 17'' leave out ''7 p.m.''.
 I do not propose to detain the Committee for long but merely wish to put on the record that, although the Opposition hope that we can complete our discussion up to clause 24 by 9.55 this evening, we believe that the inclusion of a guillotine at clause 17 at 7 o'clock is a needless and unhelpful constraint on the flexibility of our discussion. We support the rest of the motion.

Stephen Timms: At the hon. Gentleman's instigation we discussed that point at the meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee this morning. There are many amendments to clauses 18 to 24—significantly more than to clauses 13 to 17. I hope that the Committee will agree to leave in the 7 o'clock guillotine to ensure that, as well as having ample discussion on clauses 13 to 17, we have the opportunity to pay adequate attention to clauses 18 to 24. The 7 o'clock guillotine allows an adequate balance of discussion between those two important parts of the Bill.

Chris Grayling: The Opposition are expressing concern about the guillotine because we believe that a sophisticated and substantial piece of legislation is being rushed through Committee far too quickly. We fear that artificial guillotines will prevent discussion of important measures such as clause 12(1)(b), for example, which permits the Government to invest in companies without Parliament's sanction. It is extraordinary that that clause has not been discussed by the Committee.

Stephen Timms: The 7 o'clock guillotine allows us to pay adequate attention to clause 18. If we take it out, we might have lengthy discussions about earlier and less important matters and thereby neglect clause 18. We are anxious that members of the Committee should have adequate time to debate it. My proposal will have the opposite effect to what the hon. Gentleman fears.

Phil Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. If the Committee reaches clause 17 early, may we go on to clause 18 or must we stop at that point?

Win Griffiths: We may carry on to clause 18.

John Heppell: I did not intend to say anything at this stage because hon. Members want to get on with discussing the Bill. However, it is worth putting on the record that under the original programme motion we were due to finish
 clause 17 after the third sitting. We did not achieve that despite the fact that we effectively added two extra sittings. We offered extra time on another evening, which the Opposition did not take up. Our intention was to finish clause 43 by 10 pm today. We have pushed that back to clause 24. We have made enormous concessions to the Opposition to try to ensure that they have adequate time.
 The Opposition have a responsibility in Committee to allocate their time to the things that they think require most discussion. At the Programming Sub-Committee, the Opposition Front Bench spokesman pointed out that the two important clauses were clause 13 and 18. By heaven and knife at 7 pm we will ensure, not only that we have time for adequate discussion of clause 13, but that we will start our evening sitting with clause 18. There are 32 amendments to be dealt with after 7 pm and only 16 before then. We would end up with a problem similar to what we have had in the past if we agreed to the proposed amendment.

Graham Brady: I am bemused to hear the Government Whip defend what the Government are trying to do by saying that it is the Opposition's responsibility to manage their time effectively in Committee. That is precisely what I propose. He is seeking to restrict our freedom to exercise responsible judgment as to when we debate which clauses. He is trying to insert a knife into the proceedings to prevent us from exercising our responsibility in that way. The Minister is anxious that we have adequate time to debate clause 18, schedule 1 and clauses 19 to 24. I am happy to make a magnanimous gesture. If he wishes to extend the timetable for consideration of that on to our seventh sitting, the Opposition will accede to that. In the meantime, I am firmly of the view that we should not have the guillotine at 7 o'clock this evening.

Stephen O'Brien: The Government Whip has said that the Opposition have a responsibility to ensure that the Government are held accountable for their proposed legislation. While we discuss the programme motion, it is worth placing on the record that nothing could go further to divide us and ensure a less constructive approach. Opposition Members have tried to examine in detail those areas where there is either a need for clarity and exposition or at least some probing discussion. It is tendentious for the Government Whip to suggest that we have not carried out our responsibilities.
 The Committee should heed my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) who made a perfectly fair and valid point that the knife falling at 7 pm carries more risk of us not reaching the clauses that need to be discussed. If it is of any assistance to the Committee, the Opposition remain open to suggestions about not considering the Bill in the order that is on the timetable. There are a number of clauses to which amendments are not so profuse, and, while there may be some problems, most hon. 
 Members would be prepared to skip a couple of clauses to ensure that we reached the necessary parts. We could return to other less contentious clauses later. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Main Question put and agreed to.

Win Griffiths: I remind the Committee that the revised list of amendments, showing the new programme motion, is available in the Committee Room.Clause 13 Power of Secretary of State and National Assembly for Wales to give financial assistance for purposes related to education or childcare

Clause 13 - Power of Secretary of State and National Assembly for Wales to give financial assistance for purposes related to education or childcare

Phil Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 211, in page 9, line 10, at beginning insert
'Subject to section (1A) below'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 139, in page 9, line 11, leave out
'give, or make arrangements for the giving of, financial', 
and insert 
'by order make a scheme or schemes for the provision of financial'. 
No. 170, in page 9, line 13, at end insert— 
 '(1A) Any arrangement under this section which applies in England will be subject to approval by order under the affirmative resolution procedure.'.
 No. 212, in page 9, line 13, at end insert— 
 '(1A) Before exercising any power under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State as regards England shall issue a statement setting out the proposed financial assistance, and lay a copy before each House of Parliament. 
 (1B) If, within a 40-day period, either House resolves not to approve the proposed financial assistance, the Secretary of State shall take no further steps in relation to the proposed financial assistance. 
 (1C) If no such resolution is made within the 40-day period, the Secretary of State may make arrangements for giving the proposed financial assistance.'.
 No. 140, in page 9, line 29, at end insert— 
'(j) A scheme made under subsection (1) shall set out criteria for eligibility to apply for financial assistance, the means by which applications shall be made, and the criteria against which allocations of assistance will be made.'.
 No. 174, in clause 15, page 10, line 15, leave out from 'as' to end of line 17 and insert
'shall be specified in an order under section 13(1)'.
 No. 237, in clause 13, page 9, line 21, at end insert 
'subject to such financial controls as may be approved by affirmative resolution.'.

Phil Willis: I apologise to the Committee for not being here this morning.
 Amendments Nos. 211 and 212 should be considered together, because 211 is consequential on 212. Once we start to examine the clauses in part 2, we see that, like many other clauses, they are extremely significant. I must congratulate the Government on the way in which the Bill has been presented. They have hidden many things that we cannot understand until we start to get under the skin of the Bill. 
 There is a seduction about the title of part 2, which is ''Financial assistance for education and childcare''. The clauses were sold on the need for more imaginative funding arrangements for childcare and its providers, which the Liberal Democrats accept and support. Our amendments try to curtail the powers of the Secretary of State. If we take the clause literally, it says that the Secretary of State can, by sleight of hand, switch some £23 billion or £24 billion that is currently spent by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to the Department for Education and Skills. That is the reality of the powers provided by the clause. Although clause 17 contains some provisions for giving up powers, including specific examples, clause 13 gives the Secretary of State the power to fund education from her office. 
 It may be that that is the Government's intention and that, with the reform of local government funding, it wants to ring-fence education funding and send it directly from Sanctuary house. If that is the case, it is a legitimate objective for which they can argue their case. To be fair to the Government—I always try to be fair—it was the Conservatives' policy at the previous election to fund education directly from the centre, with local authorities having no responsibility. The free schools proposal would have done exactly that, and the Conservatives may want to support these proposals. 
 From 1958 onwards when the revenue support grant was introduced, an important principle was established. Through various Departments, which have now become the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the Government have distributed a block grant, so that local authorities can mix and match funding raised locally with that of the grant to provide services, including education. That has worked reasonably well; even after the reforms of 1974 and the introduction of standard spending assessments, that has not been attacked other than by the charge capping of the previous Government and the increased ring fencing of the present one. 
 The clause gives powers to the Secretary of State, who does not have to be accountable for the way in which he or she distributes the grant. The amendment would allow the Secretary of State those greater powers, but he or she would be accountable for the 
 way in which the grant was distributed. The amendment would establish a process, through an affirmative resolution of both Houses, whereby the Secretary of State was held to account for the large sums of money distributed. If my Machiavellian thoughts on the clause are wrong, the Minister will accept these simple amendments in the spirit in which they are offered, and I will go home a happy man.

Andrew Turner: Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 have the same broad objective as that of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), but instead of requiring post hoc approval, they require more notice from the Secretary of State in advance of the terms under which he will offer assistance.
 One of the great difficulties that people have in dealing with Departments is that they feel that they are operating in a fog of uncertainty. That fog is not lifted by some elements of the Bill. Indeed, this clause is one of the foggiest of all, because it is so broadly drawn. The Secretary of State should set out by order what the schemes are, so that they could be considered in more detail. Any scheme should set out criteria: how financial assistance is applied for, the means by which applications can be made and the criteria against which allocations of assistance will be made. I accept that that reduces the Secretary of State's discretion, but it also reduces his capacity to behave arbitrarily. It requires him to be clear about his objectives and to set out testable criteria for judging whether they have been achieved. That is a matter of good management. It certainly would be in the private sector, and I see no reason why it should not be a matter of good governance in the public sector. 
 The amendments would not put the Secretary of State in a straitjacket. They are designed to assist those seeking support from the Secretary of State, and to ensure that he does not devise a scheme so carefully that it will only suit one applicant. If the criteria for a scheme must be set out in advance, the Secretary of State can entertain any number of applicants who come forward on a fair, free and equal basis, rather than dream up a scheme and hand over money to the applicant for whom the scheme may have been dreamt up in the first place.

Graham Brady: I am pleased to comment briefly on the first group of amendments under clause 13, particularly amendments Nos. 170 and 174. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) was driving in the same direction with his amendment.
 The import of all the amendments is to try to give back to Parliament an element of control over the process and over the enormous freedom that Ministers seek to disburse public funds for educational purposes. With amendment No. 170, we seek to make that subject to affirmative resolution. Amendment No. 174 states that such expenditure 
''shall be specified in an order under section 13(1)''. 
Similarly, amendment No. 139 suggests that that should be done by order.
 It is clear that all hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, are deeply concerned about the degree of latitude that Ministers seek under the clause. They have the ability to expend public money in virtually any way connected in whatever tangential manner with education not only in the United Kingdom, but wherever in the world they wish. The proposal is dramatic, effectively removing the ability of the House of Commons to keep any control over the Government's expenditure on education matters. They can do almost anything. We shall discuss those matters in greater detail when we deal with later amendments, but it is clear that a future Secretary of State, of whatever party, may use the clause to drive education policy in a very different direction from that to which we have been used in the past. 
 For that reason, the Minister must first give some detail about how the Government envisage that money being spent using powers taken under the clause. Secondly, I urge him strongly to consider ways in which Parliament can be given a say and some control over the proposals. Looking to the future and a Conservative Secretary of State for Education and Skills, I might welcome the purposes to which the clause may be put; the Minister might not. I hope that we agree that in the event of a Secretary of State's seeking to use these wide powers to spend public money in whatever way, the House should be able to scrutinise what is being done and should have some right to approve whatever policy is being undertaken. 
 The Minister is listening intently. I hope that I am striking a chord and that, rather than all power to spend public funds in this respect being taken as a matter of discretion, he will agree, on reflection, that there is a way to bring proper democratic control and accountability to clause 13.

Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. May we have some guidance? A feature of the Bill—I do not understand how this came about—is that rafts of it were printed using italics rather than the normal typeface. We would have tested that if we had had a chance to discuss clause 12, but it is clearly germane to clause 13. There was an instruction on the manuscript copy of amendment No. 17, which relates to clause 12, to leave out the italics. That has been translated on the Order Paper as ''leave out subsection (1)(b)'', as though the whole subsection was intended to be left out. That was not the Opposition's intention, and it will pertain to later amendments.
 The purpose of the amendment was to probe whether the italicised typeface means anything. If it does not, were the Government in such a rush to publish the Bill that they could not get the typing correct? If I can use this point of order, that may explain the earlier sotto voce and rather cheap comment from a Government Member that suggested that Opposition Members had not talked to each other properly. I respect the independence of Back Benchers in scrutinising legislation, but the speed with which amendments have to be tabled so that they are in order 
 meant that it was not possible to have a full series of meetings that might have helped to avoid the problem that I have just cited. I would appreciate your guidance, Mr. Griffiths.

Win Griffiths: Italics are printed in the Bill where there are expenditure implications, not because someone has made a mistake or has a fancy to do something different. So the hon. Gentleman's amendment to leave out the subsection in italics—

Stephen O'Brien: To remove the italics.

Win Griffiths: Yes. That amendment is not in order. I hope that that puts the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest.

Stephen O'Brien: That is an interesting point. I had not come across the use of italics to signify an expenditure commitment. Is that common practice?

Win Griffiths: Apparently it is.

Andrew Turner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Griffiths. I am concerned that we have not dealt with clause 12(1)(b), which is in italics and cannot now be scrutinised in the other place. If I had known that we were to be the only Members to scrutinise clause 12(1)(b), I might have paid it more attention when we debated the programming motion on Thursday. Can you make any arrangement, Mr. Griffiths, to ensure that we properly scrutinise at least those aspects of the Bill that cannot be scrutinised in another place?

Win Griffiths: At this stage, the knife is well and truly buried in my back and I cannot take the discussion back to clause 12 when we should be discussing clause 13. The House of Lords can examine the clause, although it cannot amend it, and it can raise issues that can be considered when the clause comes back to the House of Commons. So that does not mean that the clause has been lost and forgotten. Now that the revelation about the italics has been made, hon. Members can return to the Committee next year in an even better state that they are in now.

Eleanor Laing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Griffiths. I am grateful for the explanation about the italics. I do not speak for my hon. Friends who know about things, but I am never too proud to admit ignorance. I had no idea until you explained to us a few moments ago, Mr. Griffiths, that italics in a Bill are used where there are expenditure implications. That is very important. Can you tell me, Mr. Griffiths, if I should have known that or found that out somewhere, as a Member of Parliament, before your explanation a few moments ago, which arose only as a result of a point of order, because my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and I were concerned about not having considered clause 12 at all?

Win Griffiths: I am not aware of a particular place where one can look that up. I can only reassure the hon. Lady that it has been the practice in the House of Commons for many years. I do not know whether a special adviser suggested that that might be a good
 way of doing things. At least we all know now what the italics mean. I correct myself on one point: the House of Lords can make amendments to the words in italics, even though there are expenditure implications. You can rest assured that the clause will not go unexamined or even unamended in the Lords.

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful.

Stephen Timms: I respond first to the concern raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. In introducing this consolidated power to provide financial assistance there is no intention of moving away from the current situation where the great bulk of support for schools and LEAs—the £22 billion to which he referred—is directed through the local government finance system. That arrangement will remain in place. The White Paper on local government published last week confirmed, as the hon. Gentleman already knew, that we plan to reform the system from April 2003. We shall not remove education funding from the local government system as part of that review. We are engaging in discussion with local government to agree the right formula for the future distribution of education funding.
 As a result of the local government finance review we hope to be able to fund more education through general funding for local authorities and less through grants paid under the proposed new power, reflecting our commitment to reduce the level of ring fencing, which, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, is a current concern in local government. 
 The new power allows us to provide the support already in the pipeline which Parliament has voted for the Department for Education and Skills, but in a less burdensome way by streamlining administrative procedures and removing some restrictions on the use of funds by schools and LEAs. We have already simplified the standards fund as far as possible under current legislation. This clause will allow further simplification and additional flexibility for schools. 
 The matter has already been raised during our deliberations, but most Members of the Committee will have heard from schools that obtaining funding through the standards fund is a particularly onerous process, with a great deal of associated bureaucracy. We have made some simplifications, and this change will help further. The overall cumulative effect will be a significant work load reduction for schools and LEAs. That has been a theme of our discussion; we need to be sensitive to work load implications. This clause is especially good news in that respect. The ensuing work load reductions will be particularly welcomed. 
 Other financial aspects of the Bill, in particular the reserve power over local authorities' education projects and the introduction of schools forums, are not under discussion today and are not affected by this clause. We will deal with issues arising from those proposals later. The purpose here is to provide a single, simple power to provide financial support across the full range of education and childcare.

Chris Grayling: Does the clause permit the Government to overhaul the arrangements for student finance without bringing new funds to the House of Commons?

Stephen Timms: No, it does not. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. The intention is to reduce bureaucracy and unnecessary administration, particularly for schools. Let me give examples of the difficulties that arise under the current arrangement, where we have to use many different powers to provide financial assistance, all hedged about and qualified in rather different ways, each with its own restrictions and obligations. We have had to set up a new funding stream through which to pay teachers' threshold pay grant rather than use the existing standards fund mechanisms. That process has added to schools' work load; it is a different administrative procedure. We have had to limit the scope of virement in the standards department rather than give schools freedom to vire the money for any use within the school that best raises standards. That means that despite the improvements we have made the use of the money is still somewhat restricted; schools still need to operate some otherwise unnecessary accounting procedures for the standards fund.
 A good example of problems with the current system is that we were unable to use education funding powers to support the threshold pay cost of teachers employed by local authorities working in care homes. The reason is that they were employed by social services departments rather than education departments and, therefore, the powers available to us did not extend to paying their extra salary costs. 
 Obviously we have no desire to treat such teachers differently from those working in schools. It is hard to think of any reason why they should be treated differently for salary purposes, but we were forced to set up an entirely separate payment mechanism for them because of the limitations in the existing legislation. I think that, on reflection, the Committee will accept that it should not be like that. There is no reason for those teachers, in comparison with any others, to be disadvantaged because of historical accidents and arbitrary distinctions made in a series of regulations over the years. 
 By amalgamating all the existing powers into a single new power with no unnecessary obligations written into the legislation we will be able to remove difficulties of the kind described, saving schools and LEAs considerable time, both in accounting for funds and also in understanding the funding system. Members will have repeatedly heard concerns about the complexity of all the different regulations through which funding is provided. I accept that this is a significant change, but it will allow us to remove a great deal of that complexity.

Phil Willis: I am genuinely encouraged by what the Minister says. Before he finishes his remarks will he say how Parliament will scrutinise the new powers that the Secretary of State is taking, answering the point made
 by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, particularly whether there would be any regulations that the Secretary of State would have to observe?

Stephen Timms: I shall come to that point shortly.
 The power needs to cover many different payments and grants. From the substantial sums paid to LEAs through the standards fund or the grant in aid that supports, for example, the National College for School Leadership, right down to one off, individual payments to a private company, a school or perhaps to a company to provide a particular service such as a training programme. So there is a wide range of types of payment that the power needs to cover. 
 Under the Bill—I believe this covers the point just raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough—Parliament will agree the broad framework under which grants and other financial assistance will be provided. Further, Parliament will, of course, continue to control the support provided under this power through the normal process of voting the funds. That is rightly a matter of parliamentary interest. However, that the detailed terms and conditions under which grants and other financial support are made are fundamentally administrative matters. They do not merit the detailed scrutiny that would be provided if they were set out in secondary legislation as has tended to be the case in the past. 
 This is a significantly deregulatory proposal. In bringing in this new power, members will see from clause 17 that we propose the repeal of 13 individual powers in all. Of these 13 powers, 11 currently demand their own set of regulations to bring them into effect, none of which would be required in the future.

Graham Brady: The Minister has just said that, under the Bill, Parliament would retain control over the way in which grants and other expenditure may be made. I may be failing to detect the relevant passage in clauses 13 to 17, but I cannot see any such requirement or reference, perhaps he would be good enough to point out the phrase in question.

Stephen Timms: The clause that we are addressing sets out the purposes for which the payments can be made, that is what I mean by the broad framework under which grants and other financial assistance will be provided. That is subsection (2) setting out the purposes
Mr. Brady rose—

Stephen Timms: Let me just carry on for a moment. Beyond that, Parliament will continue to control the support provided under this power through the usual process of voting the funds. Regulations would not add anything to the scrutiny of the amounts involved. Currently, the standards fund comprises about £3.6 billion, and the regulations do not mention the amounts attached to the powers. Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, he should be more relaxed about it. If he allows me to continue,
 I may be able to reassure him further. We can dispense with 11 sets of regulations with a significant beneficial impact for schools.

Phil Willis: A few sentences ago, the Minister said that the procedure is fundamentally administrative. I posit a scenario based on what he said last Thursday. If a local education authority placed its schools in the hands of a single company, which it could do under existing legislation, and the Secretary of State gave the company a grant under clause 12, there would be no need for any parliamentary scrutiny. All that would be scrutinised is the amount of money and the annual estimates. Does the Minister agree that that is serious?

Stephen Timms: As the hon. Gentleman explained, he was not able to be with us this morning. We debated companies and schools, which caused some confusion, and I emphasised that we do not envisage companies taking over schools. Governing bodies will continue to have responsibility for managing schools. They will be able to call on companies to help them in that role. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
 Under existing powers, Parliament cannot fully scrutinise the payment of a sum to a party. Once that power is in place, it can be used for ever and a day to make those payments. The situation that applies at the moment is not much different from that under the new arrangement. The provisions are not that different from those that apply elsewhere. In particular, we are following closely the example of section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973, which has operated successfully for nearly 30 years. That provides similar broad powers to support training programmes, and I know that my hon. Friends will be interested to know that that power made possible the establishment of the new deal. If a broad power had not been available, it would have been necessary to go through a whole procedure before the new deal was introduced. As Members know, we were able to establish the new deal quickly. I am not aware of problems that have arisen because of the availability of that power since 1973. Similarly, the powers under which the Higher Education Funding Council and the learning and skills councils are funded do not require secondary legislation either. 
 The proposals in the Bill are not without precedent. About 60 per cent. of all education funding in England flows through standard spending assessments into the local government finance system. About 25 per cent. of that funding is for higher education and the learning and skills councils, which is paid without the need for secondary legislation. The remaining 15 per cent. of the Department's budget goes on direct support for schools, pre-school education and child care—approximately £5.5 billion rather than the much larger sum mentioned by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. The change brings that sum into line with our support for education at the 16-plus level. The power thus puts a major strand of support for education on the same footing as that already agreed by Parliament elsewhere.
 Relying on secondary legislation leads to complexity and delays in the Government's ability to provide financial support, especially when a precise need cannot be anticipated and existing regulations do not allow for a particular payment.

Graham Brady: May I remind the Minister that at an earlier stage in our deliberations he said that it was precisely the Government's policy to shift from primary legislation to secondary legislation? Now he claims that even secondary legislation imposes too great a burden of scrutiny on the Government, and he wants to move from secondary legislation to a simple sweeping power for Ministers to do precisely as they please. Will he be consistent, work out what level of scrutiny is appropriate when public money is being spent, and not befuddle the Committee by suggesting that secondary legislation is adequate one day and an impediment to proper government the next?

Stephen Timms: The answer is that primary legislation is appropriate in some circumstances and secondary legislation in others. In the circumstances described here, I argue that arrangements under the Employment and Training Act 1973 are appropriate for the payments requisite under the clause. My argument—that we need significantly to deregulate in several sectors and that these powers will assist us to do so—is completely consistent.
 Apart from the complexity—its removal will be welcome—delay is another concern. It would be an obvious consequence of the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough—particularly the 40-day period. Delays can make it difficult to respond to urgent requests for support, not because such support is outside the scope of primary legislation but because secondary legislation needs to be amended and agreed. We must be able to move quickly to provide support where it is needed. A further advantage of avoiding regulations will be the simplifying and streamlining of funding structures for schools and governors. 
 We are all aware of the concerns of governors—who are, after all, volunteers—about the complexity of the regulations through which they have to apply for funding for their schools. We will replace existing regulations with a simpler, more comprehensive system governing the funding that they receive under a single set of rules and procedures. That will further reduce the work loads of those managing our schools.

Andrew Turner: I was struck earlier by the idea, ''Physician, deregulate thyself'' when the Minister was applauding himself for deregulating. He says that the provisions are necessary because of the need to act urgently. Can he provide some examples of where the absence of these provisions from the statute book has caused real harm or injustice?

Stephen Timms: I gave a good example to the Committee earlier, and that was the delay in paying threshold payments to teachers working in care homes because they had to be employed in social service departments rather than local education authorities. There is no
 justification for that delay: it was a consequence of the arcane, byzantine regulatory framework in which payments have to be made. I believe that the hon. Gentleman would accept that that is not how things should be.
 There was a suggestion in his amendment that all payments should be subject to a published scheme. If a payment is made to a single body, which might not always be the case, for an amount agreed with that body, we should not be required to publish a scheme setting out who can and how to apply for funding. However, most payments would be made under a clear, published financial framework that sets out precisely who is eligible, how they can apply, how their funding will be determined and the conditions that apply to recipients. 
 Such frameworks already exist for the standards fund, school standards and teachers threshold pay grants, for example. We will continue to publish such information in the future, since it would be impossible to administer those grants without it, although some rationalisation may be possible. However, we should not stipulate in the Bill that schemes must be set out for all payments. In some circumstances, that would not be necessary. 
 I hope that the Committee agrees that the measure will improve the Department's ability to support education and child care efficiently while reducing the burdens on schools and LEAs, which have rightly been of concern to the Committee. Over a long period, we have developed a large, complex regulatory system. However, if one is determined to provide a payment to a particular institution, it is usually possible to find a regulation that allows it to be made, although it might involve a great deal of complexity. I believe that the Committee will recognise that greater simplicity, which will follow from clause 13, will be valuable not just to Government but to schools and LEAs.

Chris Grayling: The Minister should recognise that we are raising concerns about not only this clause but clauses throughout the legislation because, while the Minister makes right-sounding comments about his desire to deregulate and streamline, deregulation appears to be de facto giving the Secretary of State the power to do anything that he or she wants. One could replace the entire Bill with a single clause that gives the Secretary of State the power to do anything whatsoever in respect of education.
 If we had seen evidence over the past five years that the Government are deregulatory—that their natural instinct is not to introduce additional hurdles—the Minister's reassurances might be more credible. Instead, endless streams of new regulations have made public servants' lives more difficult, not just in education but right across the public sector. The measure does not include clear signposts to remove hurdles but vaguely phrased and swingeingly powerful clauses that allow the Government to take decisions without reference to anyone else. 
 The nub of our concerns is that the legislation is vague. We are hearing plenty of reassurances from the Minister about guidelines that will be published and documents that will set out the Government's plans, 
 but there is nothing tangible to get to grips with. I would like to be certain that the Minister's comments symbolise a major change of direction for the Government and that in the next few years we will see a deregulatory rather than a regulatory Government, but I will believe it when I see it.

Phil Willis: This has been a useful debate. The record will show that the Minister has made a number of powerful comments about deregulation and simplifying the present bidding culture that has put huge burdens on to schools and LEAs. The trouble with bidding cultures is that not everyone wins. An enormous amount of time and energy is spent bidding for funds, first through the standards funds and then other grants.
 I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). Since 1997 the standards fund has increased from roughly £500 million to £3.7 billion. While latterly the number of categories has declined, a huge resource is kept to the Secretary of State. While the Minister made it clear that he does not envisage the Secretary of State taking on greater and greater resources from local government and will ensure that the opposite is the case, clause 13 gives the Secretary of State exactly the powers that I outlined earlier if she wants to use them. 
 The Committee has simply asked for a way in which that can be scrutinised. The Minister said that they will need to make instant decisions, but he could not give an example where a decision should be so instant that it could not be made within 40 days. If we are talking about giving small sums of money to individuals, the Secretary of State should not be involved. Those decisions should be taken as locally as possible. Why cannot some of those powers and resources be devolved either to local authorities or to the learning and skills councils? The Minister made appropriate reference to the powers that the learning and skills councils have to hand out large sums of money without a great deal of parliamentary scrutiny. Once they have their budgets, the money is handed over and there is no democratic scrutiny of those resources at all. The same is true in higher education although clearly the Bill does not refer to higher education. 
 I welcome any deregulatory effects of the clauses. Most schools and LEAs would welcome greater control over baseline budgets. They would like to see much of the £3.7 billion that is currently held in the standards fund distributed through the block grant so that schools could plan ahead and have control over their budgets rather than having to wait for the Secretary of State to hand out the next goody. This power can be used disproportionately before a general election. This is a wonderful opportunity for a Secretary of State to buy votes. The Lady Porters of this world—sorry, I should not mention her. I should wash my mouth out. [Hon. Members: ''It is sub judice.''] Nothing is sub judice in this Committee. 
 I shall not stray too far down this road, but generous settlements have often been made before general elections. The clause gives the Secretary of State 
 tremendous powers to do all sorts of things. It has been an interesting debate. We have had good assurances from the Minister, and we will hold him to them. It is rather sad that he does not feel that deregulating to the Secretary of State should not carry a greater level of scrutiny.

Graham Brady: Unlike the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough I was not remotely persuaded by what the Minister had to say. I rather suspect that the Minister was not persuaded either. Quite remarkably, he suggested that there is not much difference between the powers set out in clause 13 and what has gone before on the ability to spend money, make grants and disburse public funds in different ways. There is a vast difference between what has gone before and what the Minister wants to do in clause 13. The Minister added that there was adequate opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the way in which funds might be spent. When I challenged him to point out where that provision was in the Bill, he was able to say only that the scrutiny is happening now.
 Therefore, this sitting is the only opportunity for the House of Commons to scrutinise what any future Secretary of State may do under the clause in spending funds on the provision of any educational services, payment to any person engaged in their provision, payment for the provision of child care services or education anywhere in the world, providing for maintenance, the promotion of learning or research, and provisions relating to teacher training or the retention of teachers. It could be anything that is envisaged in the subsection (2), including 
''the remuneration of, or provision of other benefits to, teachers or non teaching staff.'' 
Any payment can be made using the powers in clause 13, and the Minister thinks that an hour and a half or two hours—whatever we had this afternoon—is sufficient scrutiny for perpetuity. 
 The logic of the Minister's position is that the only worthwhile act of scrutiny that the House of Commons will ever perform will be the annual finance Bill. He says that we will have an opportunity to vote money or not. Yes, we can decide whether to vote money to the Secretary of State to run the Department and the maintained sector, but we cannot scrutinise in detail what is done with it in the ways that are set out in the clause. Parliament is not something that sits once a year anymore to approve blanket, unlimited powers for the Executive before going away to put its feet up. The logic of the Minister's remarks is to render pointless everything done by the House of Commons. 
 We have heard a great deal about Henry VIII clauses in the Bill; I am tempted to observe that this would be more of a Charles I clause. He seems not to believe that Parliament has any purpose in the scrutiny of legislation. If we allow the Minister to take such massive powers, which Parliament has not granted to the Executive in recent history, no Member of any party in the House of Commons will have the right to 
 express a view or preference about how the Government choose to disperse funds that are voted to it for educational purposes. 
 This has been a worthwhile debate. I would not press the amendments on the use of affirmative resolutions, but the Minister should understand that I am deeply unhappy about what the clause would do. It is wrong and something that Members on both sides of the House will come to regret in the future. I hope that he contemplates the scale of the powers that he is trying to take.

Stephen Timms: Let me say to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell that the Bill is unquestionably deregulatory. The clauses in part 2 are deregulatory, especially clause 17, which sets out the regulations elsewhere that are repealed. I welcome the initial points made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I draw his attention to clause 16, which allows the power to provide financial assistance to be delegated. That addresses one of his points.
 To answer the points made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, it would be hard to argue that Parliament did not scrutinise the new deal; it undoubtedly did through Select Committees, debates on the Floor of the House and parliamentary questions. It would wrong to say that regulations to permit the establishment of the new deal were not considered by a Committee and to deduce from that omission that there was no parliamentary scrutiny, that the House of Commons did not know what was going on and that it was not given an opportunity for debate. The hon. Gentleman needs to consider the range of ways in which the House, rightly, undertakes parliamentary scrutiny. Those methods will continue to be available under the clause.

Phil Willis: The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West may have given the wrong example, so perhaps the Minister will apply his mind to the threshold payments, which were introduced without debate in the House of Commons. It was not until after the National Union of Teachers had taken the Government to the High Court and won that we had an affirmative resolution. We prayed in aid against that and had a 10-minute debate around 11.30 one night. The issue was never brought back. If that is what the Minister means by parliamentary scrutiny, he has picked the wrong topic.

Stephen Timms: I gave the example of the new deal, which stands up well to that consideration. I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making about teachers' threshold payments. I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would have thought it right that those extra salary payments should be made to teachers. Such an arrangement should not be taken before the courts, and I regret the fact that it was.

Graham Brady: I fear that the Minister's example of the new deal was little better. I speak as a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment in the last Parliament, which was intimately involved with scrutiny of that measure. The difference between
 the scrutiny that the House has a duty to apply to legislation and the scrutiny that the Select Committee could apply to a scheme such as the new deal is that one enables a scheme to move forward, whereas the other is retrospective.
 The Select Committee could not scrutinise the establishment of the new deal. We could consider it only in hindsight to establish the lessons of one and two years on. When the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), who was then a Minister responsible for employment, came before that Committee, she did not even know whether the cost of the new deal at that point was £750 million or £900 million. That is not adequate scrutiny; it is not a substitute for proper scrutiny during the legislative phase of a scheme's establishment.

Phil Willis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 239, in page 9, line 12, after 'assistance' insert 'or other payment'.

Win Griffiths: With this we may discuss the following: Amendment No. 153, in page 9, line 29, after 'staff.', insert—
 '(2A) The Secretary of State (in relation to England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in relation to Wales) shall make a scheme to give an education credit to any person in the circumstances mentioned in section [Education Credits].'. 
New clause 1—Education credits— 
 '(1) In this section and section 13 ''education credit'' means the entitlement to a sum of money of a person in circumstances mentioned in sub-section (2) and calculated in accordance with subsection (3) which may only be used at an independent school in consideration of the education of a child in respect of whom the credit is provided; 
 (2) Those circumstances are— 
 (a) that the person is the parent or guardian of a child of statutory school age; 
 (b) that the person has, in respect of the child, expressed and given reasons for a preference as to the school at which he wishes education to be provided for that child; 
 (c) that a local authority or governing body has not complied with such preference; 
 (d) that the child has been admitted to an independent school or will be admitted subject to the availability of an education credit; and 
 (e) that the child has not been educated in an independent school, other than when his parent or guardian is entitled to an education credit, for more than six months in the preceding three years. 
 (3) The education credit shall be calculated each year so far as reasonably practicable to reflect the amount by which the budget share of a school maintained by that local education authority would be adjusted were a child of that age to be admitted to that school; 
 (4) The local education authority shall make arrangements 
 (a) to publish information on the value of the education credit for children of each year of statutory school age; 
 (b) to pay to each independent school at which a child in receipt of an education credit is educated a sum equivalent to the value of that education credit not more than six months after the child has completed each term at the school.'.

Graham Brady: Amendment No. 239 is a probing amendment. My hon. Friends and I seek to include after the term ''assistance'' the phrase ''or other payment'' to draw out from the Minister the true scope of clause 13, whether it be funded by income tax and other legitimate Government revenues or by ship money, following an analysis that I proposed earlier.
 The scope of the clause is such that financial assistance can amount to virtually any type of payment. That is confirmed in clause 14(1), which states: 
''financial assistance under section 13 may be given in any form.'' 
To put flesh on the bones, subsection (2) goes on to say that assistance may be given by way of 
''(a) grants, 
 (b) loans, 
 (c) guarantees, 
 (d) incurring expenditure on the provision of equipment for the benefit of the person assisted, or 
 (e) incurring other expenditure for the benefit of the person assisted.'' 
Subsections (a) to (d) could almost be deleted because subsection (e), in a manner typical manner of the Bill, encompasses anything. As the clause is phrased, financial assistance can mean any payment for the benefit of any person. 
 Amendment No. 239 seeks to make the Bill more explicit. Instead of financial assistance being perceived as the occasional grant or a little help for child care for somebody who might not otherwise be able to take advantage of educational opportunities, the Bill should be more explicit and state that financial assistance can mean any disbursement of public funds for any educational or child care purpose. 
 The Bill, because of its enormous breadth, effectively provides a framework within which the Minister and his colleagues can take a wide spectrum of actions without coming to Parliament for approval or scrutiny of what is proposed. The expenditure of public money for educational purposes could be widely interpreted. In my maiden speech in 1997 I opposed the Government's first piece of legislation abolishing the assisted places scheme. When I first read the Bill, I realised that should this clause ever become law, the Secretary of State would effectively have the power either to recreate the assisted places scheme in its old form or to create a scheme somewhat similar in its effects. There are, of course, many admirable schemes on the table. 
 For example, the Minister will be aware of the Oasis proposal, which has been put forward by the Independent Schools Council. That scheme seeks to propose a way forward for the partnerships that the Government has rightly and admirably sought to foster in the maintained and independent sectors—a partnership involving private and charitable money, and voluntary and Government funds; a perfectly sensible proposal, not a detailed proposal, which the Independent Schools Council has made clear it is prepared to debate with the Minister to discover the best way forward to deal with Labour Members concern that the original assisted places scheme did not always go to the most deserving. It was a genuine attempt to deal with those concerns. Under clause 13, 
 the Secretary of State would be able to take up its proposals and introduce such a scheme without any consultation with the House of Commons, any further legislative process or even secondary legislation, or any attempt or need to inform hon. Members of the Minister's intentions. 
 Other schemes could also come into the frame, such as those of the Sutton Trust, which has partnerships with the Government and which does some admirable work, notably funding places in the Belvedere school in Liverpool. Peter Lampl of the Sutton Trust, a great educational philanthropist, has been prepared to put a considerable sum of his own money into helping people, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds, to gain access to some of the best schools in the country. 
 The Government have existing partnership arrangements with the Sutton Trust, and I applaud that. Under clause 13, we could see such partnerships taken much further. The Sutton Trust's proposal that leading academic independent schools should be made available, on an open-access basis, to anyone, regardless of their means to pay, might well appeal to the Minister or the Secretary of State. Clause 13 would allow them to take that idea forward. 
 We could also examine some of the Government's work in such matters. We could look at their discussions on partnership arrangements between independent and state schools. We could look at the splendid DFES document published in November 2001, ''Building Bridges for the New Millennium''. It even has an unfortunate picture of the millennium bridge, which I think might be the wobbly one, but I am sure that the Government do not intend to draw any analogy between their policies on partnership between the independent and maintained sector and their wobbly millennium bridge.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the millennium bridge. I am sure that he would not want anyone north of Watford to think that he did not realise that the real millennium bridge is between Gateshead and Newcastle. The imitation over the Thames should not be put in the same category.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I am delighted that he has had the opportunity to visit that bridge, as have I. The bridge was not entirely clear in the picture, although I am sure that it is a splendid picture. I might add that, as I am married to a Geordie, I am very keen on the city of Newcastle and I think that the millennium bridge there is splendid. As one would expect, it is infinitely better than the southern effort in London, which does, indeed, wobble.
 The Government's response to the proposals contains all the recommendations and whether they are accepted or not. Recommendation one, that the partnerships between independent and maintained schools should be expanded and embedded, 
''with the eventual aim of reaching all schools''
is accepted. Recommendation two, that the Department should 
''explore and seek to provide what partnerships need to become sustainable in the longer term'' 
is accepted. Recommendation three is accepted, the document stating: 
 ''We are committed to continued support for partnerships between the two sectors. We are determined to see through the changes that we have begun, embedding them fully in the system, and we will continue to invest in them to ensure that this happens.'' 
Recommendation four, that there should be 
''a permanent mechanism for bringing together independent and state school representatives, alongside other bodies'' 
is accepted, with the comment that the composition of that will be discussed, and so on. 
 I make no criticism of any of that; it is absolutely the right policy. The Government are beginning to explore ways in which the skills, knowledge and expertise, and sometimes facilities, of the independent schools sector can be harnessed for the benefit of schools in the maintained sector. That is all well and good and appropriate. 
 The question is exactly how far the Government see such partnership arrangements progressing. The arrangements that they have made between maintained schools and independent schools, their partnership with the Sutton Trust and the various other proposals that have been put on the table could all have been done, to almost any extent, under clause 13. Those powers will enable Ministers to provide for places to be purchased at independent schools inside or outside the United Kingdom. There may be specific reasons why Ministers see it as appropriate to purchase places at independent schools outside the United Kingdom, perhaps for diplomatic or service families. 
 Amendment No. 239, by making it explicit that Ministers will have the scope, without recourse to Parliament, to spend money in any way they want for educational purposes, seeks to draw out the Government's exact intentions. We may see some exciting changes as a result of the powers in the Bill regardless of whether they are implemented by the current Government or a future Government. We may see more open traffic between the independent sector and the maintained sector. Indeed, looking at the other things that the Bill seeks to do, most notably the measures under an early clause that enable the provision of education through companies by schools, we may see that the division between independent, state and maintained schools disappears. The seeds of that are in clause 13, and it will be exciting to see what will be done with these powers. 
 I tabled amendment No. 239 in a spirit of inquiry as a probing amendment seeking to elicit some comment from the Minister about how far he or the Secretary of State want to go in experimenting with new ways of spending public money for educational purposes, and I look forward to his response.

Andrew Turner: I was interested in my hon. Friend's description of a picture of a bridge that he could not recognise as a good picture. His amendment is good, and it was not until he explained it in more
 detail that I realised how good it is. The passage of his lead amendment would render my amendment unnecessary. Indeed, it may be that the Bill already renders unnecessary my amendment and new clause, but perhaps the Minister could tell me why my amendment is unnecessary.
 Amendment No. 153 would require the Secretary of State to make payment of an education credit in certain circumstances, but the bulk of my ideas are contained in new clause 1. The modest amendment and new clause seek to deal with a problem that many parents, perhaps more than we realise, face: many parents in my constituency do not achieve their first choice of school for their children, and many more parents face that situation in other constituencies. Only two out of the five high schools in my constituency are oversubscribed so we are rather fortunate, but many parents are disappointed because they do not achieve their first choice of school. Many more are disappointed because they dare not ask for their first choice of school for fear that if they fail to achieve it they would not be able to get into their second choice of school because by the time that their application was considered it would be full of first-choice applicants. 
 My amendment and new clause seek, in a small way, to remedy that problem. It may be that parents do not chose a school because they do not think that it is good enough, or it may be that they do not choose it for entirely different reasons with which we do not sympathise. Perhaps they want a place at a church school, but there is not sufficient space. We may not consider attending a church school important, but they might. 
 There are only three options for parents who fail to achieve a place at the school of their choice. First, they can suffer in silence—or otherwise—their child's being sent to a school that is not their first choice. Secondly, they can go private, an opportunity which is not open to many people. Thirdly, they can set up a school of their own, an avenue which is open to even fewer people, but which my cousin pursued in the 1960s when his son was not admitted to the school of his choice. Last year, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) did likewise in response to the London borough of Southwark's failure to provide sufficient places at popular schools. Indeed, many of his constituents refused to accept a place in some of the more unpopular secondary schools in the borough. 
 As I said, going private is a limited option. Not many people can afford a private education, even at some of the less expensive schools. Suffering in silence cannot be good for a child who has to attend a school that is not his parents' first choice. In seeking to assist those who want to set up a school of their own, or who want to go private, the amendments would not help everyone, but the Government will be pleased to hear that they would not cost much. If anything, they would result in a saving to the public purse.
 Under new clause 1, to which I want to refer in some detail, the Secretary of State would be required to pay an education credit to anyone who complies with certain requirements. The first requirement is that the person concerned is the parent of a child of statutory age. Secondly, he must have gone through the process outlined in sections 86 and 87 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, and the local authority must have been unable to offer a place at his preferred school. Thirdly, the child must have been admitted to, or will be admitted to, an existing independent school, or to a school established especially for the purpose, such as that with which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was involved. Moreover, to ensure that there is no dead-weight cost, the provision would apply only to those who have not been educated in independent schools for more than six months in the past three years. There is clearly an argument against using public money to fund those who, because they could afford a place in an independent school, have already secured one. 
 The new clause sets out how the value of the education credit will be calculated. The calculation is based, in rather elongated form, on the value of the age-weighted pupil unit that would follow the child, were he educated in a school in the local education authority area. The calculation therefore does not include any of the local authority's central overhead costs. Local authorities would publish information on the value of the education credit, and would have an obligation to pay the credit to the school at which the child was educated, after the child has received the education. 
 The provision would help the many people who are dissatisfied because they have not been allocated the school of their choice. Of course, it would help them only if they want their child to go to an independent school, and only if the school is sufficiently inexpensive for the education credit to cover the cost, or if the parent is able to make up the difference. The cost of educating an 11-year-old child for one year in two of three independent schools in my constituency is £2,805 and £3,090 respectively. That is very much in line with the age-weighted pupil unit for an 11-year-old. It does not cover it entirely, but it is quite close, and parents can afford to top up the education credit if necessary to take advantage of an independent school education for their children. I know of parents on modest means who pay to send their children to such schools already, because they are not satisfied with their local provision. 
 There are many other examples. The Minister may be aware of the John Loughborough school in Haringey, which was an independent school until it was accepted into the maintained sector. It is an inexpensive school for parents of modest means. We are not talking about a subsidy to Eton, Harrow or Rugby; we are talking about a modest scheme to assist parents whose children do not get into a school of their choice to use an alternative to the second choice, which may not be to their liking.

Caroline Flint: The amendments sound seductive, but in reality they would drive a coach and horses through the maintained sector. The provisions are the assisted places scheme by another name. They are similar to the disastrous nursery vouchers scheme, which did nothing to build on nursery education provision and caused chaos in the system.
 Politicians of all parties—I have mentioned this before in the Committee—should be careful when talking about choice. The reality in my constituency and many others is that most parents' kids attend their first-choice school. The parents choose the school that is closest to where they live, even if they are not entirely happy with how that school operates. That is why we should not be distracted by attempts to pump money into the independent sector. Instead we should focus on putting resources into the maintained sector and ensuring that every school provides a standard of education of which every child and family can be proud. 
 The Bill gives schools the opportunity to innovate, experiment and join in partnership with others in a productive and co-operative way, and allows us to build on the achievements of the maintained sector. The amendment of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight offers none of that. It offers diversionary activities and division and does nothing to meet the needs of the vast majority of children, who attend maintained schools.

Ivan Lewis: It is a particular privilege to make my ministerial debut with you in the Chair, Mr. Griffiths. I have felt, during the last few sittings, like a footballer awaiting his debut, only to remain on the bench. It was not the Government's decisions but the time-wasting tactics of the Opposition that led to that situation.
 It is appropriate for me to begin my contribution to the debate by discussing these particular amendments. I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). The amendments are effectively a denial of history. We talk about democratic accountability and accountability through the House, but we also need to remember accountability to the electorate. 
 In 1997 and 2001, the British electorate voted for education policies that drew a line under the kind of divisive policies contained in the amendments. The Government made it clear in their offering to the British people in 1997 that they would phase out the assisted places scheme and use the money to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. The Government put a clear choice before the British people and they voted accordingly. 
 The British people also, when asked about the Government's great successes, repeatedly express respect for and concur with the view that we need to create a British education system that provides opportunities for all. We must move away from an education system that educates an elite, which has created a structural skills and productivity deficit and 
 significant problems of social division and social exclusion in this country. We have not, as a country, focused on the vast majority of children and young people who are educated in the maintained sector. Rather, we have focused on a small minority educated in the independent sector. 
 The Government have no problem with the concept of parents choosing to send their children to independent schools, but the Government do not believe that it is the state's responsibility to target what will always be finite resources on the independent sector. Amendment No. 153 and new clause 1 would simply reintroduce the assisted places scheme. It would be interesting for the Committee to know whether that represents official Conservative party policy or the view of the Isle of Wight branch of the Conservative party, but it provides another example of how the Conservative party is cut adrift from the mainstream British electorate. As long as that remains the case, the Conservative party will remain unelectable, which will not worry Labour or Liberal Democrat Members. 
 I cannot accept that the proposed scheme would represent a saving to the taxpayer. The sums do not add up and it would require some extremely creative accounting to demonstrate any saving. We would also run the risk of creating a situation in which parents would make an application to a school, although they knew that their child had little chance of being accepted, and then, having been unsuccessful in their first choice of school, become eligible for an education credit. The long-term consequence of accepting the amendment would be that the Government would end up funding all independent places. Furthermore, the calculation made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, in terms of the transfer of resources from the maintained sector, underestimates the cost of places in most independent schools. Therefore, only those parents who could top up that amount would be able to exercise the option that the hon. Gentleman claims to be making available to a wide range of parents.

Graham Brady: One thing that inhibits debate in this interesting area is that the Government have always been reluctant to publish the cost per place in a maintained school for comparison with the cost in the independent sector. The cost per place that is quoted for the maintained sector is usually a revenue cost and no attempt is made to include a capital element. Will the Minister undertake to put that right and to publish details of the cost of a place in the maintained sector, including the capital element?

Ivan Lewis: The Government have been gradually moving towards a far more transparent process of funding education. We will change the nature of the standard spending assessment from next April and we are increasing significantly the proportion of funding delegated to individual schools. The inevitable consequence of creating a fairer financial regime and changing the SSA system, set up under the Conservative Government to such inequitable effect, will be to make the cost of providing places far more transparent.

Graham Brady: I welcome the Minister's commitment to greater transparency, but instead of waiting for the SSA to be reformed—an interminable process—will he publish an assessment of the cost per place in the maintained sector, including the capital element?

Ivan Lewis: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the SSA system will be completely overhauled and the new system will be put in place from 1 April 2003. That commitment was made by the relevant Cabinet Ministers and we intend to honour that commitment. So far as I am aware, all the expenditure—revenue or capital expenditure—in the maintained sector is in the public domain, as is the number of pupils. With some imaginative research facilities, to which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has access, it should not be too difficult to identify the sum that we spend in relation to the number of pupils in the maintained sector.

Andrew Turner: I am sure that the Minister is trying to help my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, but the value of sites occupied by maintained schools is not in the public domain. An independent school has to meet the notional rent payable on those sites. A maintained school does not meet it openly, although, of course, it is met. I think that my hon. Friend sought that information.
 Will the Minister explain why new clause 1 would be the recipe whereby the Government fund all places in independent schools? The sum of money is not sufficient to fund a place in many independent schools, and new clause 1(2)(e) suggests that a parent will not be eligible for a credit if 
''the child has . . . been educated in an independent school . . . for more than six months in the preceding three years''.

Ivan Lewis: It would take considerable time to reach that point, but that is the logical long-term consequence of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. In promoting new clause 1, he acknowledged that, depending on the fee rate of the independent school, a top-up from parents would be required in many, if not most, circumstances.

Phil Willis: I welcome the Minister to the Committee. I had thought that he had a bad throat. Will he confirm that the clause makes the amendment irrelevant, because it gives the Secretary of State the power to give a direct grant to any private school that he chooses, so that it can fund whatever it wants? Yes or no?

Ivan Lewis: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no intention of using the powers in that way. I ask him to consider not the words, but the actions of the Government since our election in 1997. We have made it clear that we welcome partnership between the independent and maintained sectors, but we do not believe it appropriate for the state to fund the small minority of young people educated in the independent sector. We should target finite resources on the majority of young people who are educated in the maintained sector.
 It would be disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Government would turn on its head not only the words and rhetoric post-1997, but every action that we have taken on education policy post-1997. We want the education of the many, not the few. We are ensuring that all individuals have the opportunity to fulfil their potential. We are targeting resources on areas with a culture of low aspiration, where for far too long, young people have not been given opportunities to fulfil their potential. Such policies form the part of the Government's track record of which we are most proud.

Andrew Turner: Disingenuousness is not limited to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, if it is present in him at all. The Minister is being disingenuous. The Government have taken many actions that no one expected them to take in 1997, such as introducing tuition fees, and also introducing the Bill. Having piled an increasing amount of legislation on to schools in the past four years, they are now trying in their feeble way to deregulate.

Ivan Lewis: I naturally do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments. We need a clearer view of where the Conservative party stand on important matters of education policy, as they sometimes seem inconsistent. There seem to be at least two, and possibly three, factions in the parliamentary Conservative party with respect to major issues of education policy.
 I turn to amendment No. 239, tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. I—along with other members of the Committee, no doubt—am at a loss to understand the practical effect of the additional words that he wants to insert. I cannot understand how inserting the words ''financial assistance'' would change the clause. He accepted that it was a probing amendment, which would bring the Bill into line with the views of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, as he focused exclusively on the possibility of the Government supporting various independent school initiatives, such as the OASIS—open access to schools in the independent sector—proposals or the Sutton Trust. His suggestion did not seem to have a more general application relating to the use of additional powers not legislated for in the clause. He was interested purely in the independent sector. 
 The Government are proud of the fact that we have encouraged partnerships, where appropriate, between the independent and maintained sectors. We are committed to that, because we believe that it significantly benefits children and young people, but in no circumstances would we contemplate returning to the days of a divisive education system, in which the state concentrated its resources and policies on a small minority of children and young people. That had disastrous effects in terms of social division and is one reason why our economy was held back for many years.

Phil Willis: I was not going to respond to the amendments, but the Minister deserves a response. The amendments distract from the main issue that the Committee and the House should be considering. They have been allowed to become a distraction because the Bill restores the very powers that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), took away in his first piece of legislation in the House. The Bill restores the right to assisted places, and the Minister has admitted that the Secretary of State may fund any private school that he wishes to fund. I accept what the Minister says when he tells us that that is not the Government's intention, so I am not being disingenuous. I believe that it is purely coincidental that millions of pounds have been provided for the Secretary of State to support initiatives with private schools. I fully understand that that is a by-product, not the Government's intention. The Ministers are conferring on that issue, but the reality is that over the past 12 months, we have heard through press releases—not through the House—of millions of pounds going to support private schools. If the Minister wants to tell the Committee that that is not so, let him do so.
 I am sure that no one believes the Minister when he says that he wants no more divisive education systems. I am surprised that a man of such intelligence and integrity would purport to present that as Government policy. There is nothing more divisive than what the Government are doing in the Bill in terms of secondary schooling; nothing more divisive than saying that 50 per cent. of our schools can be specialist schools by 2006, so that the other 50 per cent. will not. How does that not divide those that get the money from those that do not, those that have the extra kudos from those that do not, and those that attract the additional teachers from those that do not? If that is not divisive, I do not know what is. I should like to see every school receive extra money and have special status, and every one of them have to state their special ethos and to develop that ethos. That is a laudable objective for Government—[Interruption.] 
 With respect to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), it might be the Government's policy, but we are talking about half the schools in Britain being specialist in five years' time, and the other half not; half having an extra £0.5 million of resources and the others not. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that that will make a difference to the perception of people in all our constituencies and to parents' choices between schools, he is wrong. Perhaps he should do more work in his constituency to see what differences will exist between schools. 
 The Minister claimed he did not want a divisive educational system. What will the expansion of faith schools do? Is the Minister conscious of what is happening in terms of some of the faith schools in Britain? The Minister for School Standards said just two weeks ago that his attack on grammar schools was over. Opposition Members might applaud that, but it means that the Government's stated intention when they came to power that there should be no more 
 selection has been thrown out of the window, and that grammar schools are now acceptable. Grammar schools, specialist schools, faith schools—if that is not creating a divisive education system, what is? 
 Returning to the amendments, I think that the Minister is right to say that they would be a recipe for funding private schools. That is what assisted places were. All the evidence and research shows that middle-class parents were using the system effectively to have their children transferred to the private sector. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred to that, although he saw it as a flawed scheme and was honest enough to say so.

Andrew Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that they might have been middle-class parents, but on the whole they were middle-class parents on low incomes? I accept that the scheme will not benefit everyone, but it will benefit some people.

Phil Willis: I did not mention income. I referred to middle-class parents. Successive Conservative Governments have never given a fig for children at the poor end of the spectrum, or cared about whether children living in abject poverty should have an education.

Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: No, I want to finish this point. The impact of this must be felt. If, for instance, 100 or 200 youngsters from one local authority were attracted to private schools, that would not just affect the children in those private schools; it would have a knock-on effect for everybody who was left in the system, because it would add costs to the whole system and take out, as did the assisted places scheme, those parents who should be agitating within the system for its improvement.
 We have to address the question, which was never addressed under assisted places and is not addressed in the amendments, of how the children are to be chosen. If it is to be purely because they do not get their first choice and they are a bit unhappy, who introduced that system? It was the previous, Conservative Government. To be fair to this Government, they attempt, in the part of the Bill on admissions, to rectify some of the problems of first choice. Will the private schools make the choice? Which children will they choose under the circumstances? 
 I hope that the Government return to the matter in due course, but one of the most acute admission problems is to be found in London, and it results from the Greenwich judgment. In many London boroughs, children have a problem gaining admission to a school, let alone the school of choice.

Graham Brady: I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, and I am most grateful to him for his support. We grammar school boys must stick together, albeit that he attended a fee-paying grammar school and mine was in the maintained sector. I do not hold that against him, as I know that William Hulme was an excellent grammar school. I
 was delighted last year to address the founder's day dinner at that school, and I know that he would have been sorry to have missed it.
 He said that, in 1997 and again this year, the electorate had drawn a line under the sort of policy set out in amendment No. 239. He went on to say that there was no difference between what my amendment sought to do and the provisions already in the Bill, but that was precisely my point. I made clear at the outset that this was a probing amendment, and that my purpose was to demonstrate that the words contained in the amendment were otiose. The Minister has kindly confirmed that. However, I would go a little further. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight mentioned my saying that the picture on the front of ''Building Bridges for the New Millennium'' was good, even though I did not recognise which bridge it was. I explained that that was the reaction of a father who, as those members of the Committee who are parents would readily understand, might more properly have described it as a lovely picture, even though one could not say whether it was a bridge over the Thames or the Tyne. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight tabled an interesting amendment. It may be a policy prescription that my hon. Friends and I would be interested to examine. I suggest that the Ministers and their right hon. and hon. Friends might want to consider it; indeed, they may already be considering it. 
 Not only was the wording of amendment No. 239 otiose; more tellingly, so was the whole of my hon. Friend's amendment and new clause. As the Minister rightly said when rejecting the amendment, or suggesting that the Committee might be good enough to agree to a request that the amendment be withdrawn, the powers to do what we have discussed would remain in the Bill, completely unchanged. Those include the ability to introduce school vouchers, set up a system of education credits, introduce a form of assisted places scheme, accept the independent schools' councils OASIS proposals, and disburse funds by accepting Peter Lampl's proposals from the Sutton trust. All those powers are given under clause 13. For that reason, this has been a very useful debate. 
 It was clear from the Minister's remarks, and from the earlier remarks of the School Standards Minister, that as far as the Government are concerned, today's discussion is the end of the debate on education in the House of Commons. This is the last opportunity that hon. Members will have to scrutinise any such scheme that may be put forward by the present or future Governments. The Minister may say that none of that is his intention, nor is it the intention of the current Secretary of State. 
 Because of the way in which the Government are legislating and the unfettered powers that they are taking under clause 13, this has been an important opportunity to air some of the things that could be done with those broad powers. We shall watch with interest to see what the Government will do, but hon. Members on both sides should be aware that any Government who seek to take such powers while refusing to accept any future parliamentary control on 
 how they are used, are asking both the House of Commons and the British public to take a huge amount on trust. 
 Among different Committee members on both sides, I am sure that there are many different pet schemes, projects, ideas and ways in which they think education policy could be developed. It is conceivable that any one of us may, at some future point, be Secretary of State for Education and Skills--[Interruption.]--subject, obviously, in one case, to a bit of fleet footwork and a change of party. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is on his own and I did not want to pick on him. 
 We must accept that, if the Bill as it stands becomes law, it will give any future Secretary of State the power to do almost anything with our education policy. That is not a good way in which to legislate. It may seem superficially attractive to Ministers in the short term, while they hold their office, but if they do not think again about the scope of the sweeping Executive powers and the absence of any facility for scrutiny or control of those powers, they will come to regret them. I shall not press the amendment to a vote.

Andrew Turner: This has been an interesting debate, not least because it has extracted from the Under-Secretary the admission, by omission of the fact, that the Bill provides for the Government to do exactly what my hon. Friend and I are suggesting they will do. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough on having extracted that admission by omission.
 I accept that the amendments do not meet the needs of the vast majority, including the amendments to do with special educational needs. That is not to say that the concerns of minorities should not be considered and met. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Don Valley murmurs ''in the maintained sector''. I am not sure that the difference between the independent and the maintained sector is significant as far as parents who are looking for a decent education for their child are concerned. 
 The constituents of the hon. Member for Don Valley may be fortunate enough to get into their first choice of school, although from her description it sounded as if they are so careless that they do not care which school they go to. I apologise if that is not what she meant, but that is exactly how it came across.

Caroline Flint: To confirm again what I was trying to say, I believe that our responsibility as politicians elected by constituents is to ensure that we put our heart and soul into the maintained sector. I do not see our job as providing an opportunity—if that is the right word—for a few to go into private education. My responsibility is to the children and families who are, overwhelmingly, in the maintained sector.
 Even if the hon. Gentleman's proposals were to help a few to go into private education, the knock-on effect would be to destabilise the maintained sector and further degrade it.

Andrew Turner: I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful intervention. She has set out her responsibility. Mine is to the electors in my constituency and to the wider benefit of the electorate in the country—to the people, not to a sector, structure or a particular type of school whether it be maintained or independent. My responsibility is to ensure that they get a decent education. To the Ministers' credit, that is also their objective, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Don Valley is not so progressive. I share their objectives; I want to ensure the best possible education and to meet the needs of those to whom it is not being provided.

Graham Brady: Has my hon. Friend considered the close analogy between what he proposes in the educational world and what Ministers are doing in the Department of Health? His explanation is precisely the justification that the Secretary of State for Health advanced for purchasing hospital places from BUPA in Surrey, for progressing pilot schemes for the purchase of treatment in private hospitals or overseas and for generally providing treatment that people need regardless of means of provision.

Andrew Turner: Indeed, it is. I congratulate the Secretary of State for Health on doing that. My constituents will benefit because the scheme for purchasing places overseas—overseas rather than the mainland of Great Britain—will apply to the Isle of Wight health authority. The purpose of the amendment is to deal with a problem, and one that is not under the ownership of a small minority in the Conservative party.
 A moment ago, I congratulated the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey on trying and succeeding to establish an independent school for the benefit of children in Bermondsey who could not get into their school of choice and whose parents refused to send them elsewhere. To their credit, Ministers assisted the creation of that school, as did the London borough of Southwark, for which I was privileged to work at the time. It created an opportunity for poor parents who do not have the benefits that we may have—I cannot speak for everyone in this place, but I was fortunate enough to have them. I apologise if that is a distraction, but I do not believe it to be a distraction to try to provide for those for whom the maintained sector does not yet provide effectively. My concern to improve the maintained sector is not diminished, and I believe we could do a great deal more. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West referred to a catalogue of things that the Government are doing in an unexpected way. I mentioned that they have reversed their position on tuition fees. They are also reintroducing city technology colleges under the name of city academies, and reintroducing grant-maintained schools, with one or two problems, through the Bill. I congratulate them on being adventurous, and I wish that they would be so with the amendment. It does not set out to create a saving, or to subsidise the independent sector. I happen to believe that it might create a saving, but that 
 is not its point or purpose. It is meant to provide where there is a need. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West does not intend to press his amendment to a vote, and as the Secretary of State already has the power to do the things set out in my amendments, I shall not press them because they are otiose.

Graham Brady: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 141, in page 9, line 15, leave out ', in the United Kingdom or elsewhere,'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 142, in page 9, line 17, leave out
', in the United Kingdom or elsewhere,'.

Andrew Turner: The explanatory notes are curiously vague, if not entirely silent, on the purpose of the words:
''in the United Kingdom or otherwise.'' 
I understand what the words mean, but I am unclear as to their purpose. It might have been helpful if the Minister had been able to publish the contents of his elaborately tabulated folder. He may provide a sensible and intelligent response to the amendment. Had he done so before the Committee sat, this discussion might not have been necessary. I shall leave him to say why he proposes that the National Assembly for Wales should be able to make a scheme to purchase places in independent schools in Argentina for the residents of Uruguay.

Stephen Timms: I thought that this might arise from the hon. Gentleman's concern that we should be able to fund education in the Isle of Wight, but I am reassured that that is not the case. I shall draw his attention to the first couple of lines of subsection (1):
 ''The Secretary of State (in relation to England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in relation to Wales)''. 
That form of words—I accept that it is not obvious—ensures that this power cannot be used for the benefit of the residents of Uruguay. However, we want to extend the power beyond the UK in order to support exchange visits or collaborative work between the UK and abroad. If the power were restricted simply to the UK, we might not be able to provide teaching, support or child care to children on overseas visits, and it would certainly be likely to make arrangements for providing that support more burdensome and bureaucratic. We shall not be making extensive use of the power to support educational provision outside the UK, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we shall sometimes do so in relation to overseas trips. 
 Subsection (1) ensures that the support provided by this power will benefit education in England or Wales, but we do not want to restrict the power because that would make international collaboration more difficult to support.

Graham Brady: I do not want to detain the Committee on this point, but I do not accept the Minister's remarks.
 ''The Secretary of State (in relation to England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in relation to Wales)'' 
does not, in any sensible reading of the clause, limit the expenditure to those places. He has already accepted that the wording is not entirely clear. Would it be possible for the Government to come up with wording that is entirely clear at a later stage in the Bill?

Stephen Timms: My advice is that that wording has the effect that I described in ensuring that the powers are used for the benefit of education in England or Wales. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend would accept that we will use this power to extend our ability to support teaching on trips overseas. We will not want it to be possible for these payments to be applied only in respect of activities actually within the UK. Nevertheless, subsection (1) ensures that the power is used for the benefit of education in England or Wales.

Andrew Turner: Mr. Griffiths, you are looking at me expectantly, and I do not blame you.

Win Griffiths: I want to know whether you want to withdraw the amendment or press it to a vote.

Andrew Turner: I am undecided because like my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West I do not accept that subsection (1) is clear and means what the Minister says it does. I should like to know to whom or what the words ''in relation to England'' or ''in relation to Wales'' apply. I had assumed that they applied to the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales respectively, and that the Secretary of State makes rules in England and the National Assembly makes rules in Wales. If the Minister means that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly ''may give in relation to England'' or ''may give in relation to Wales'' respectively, he is saying something entirely different from the construction that might otherwise be put on the clause. Alternatively, it might be ''any person in England'' or ''any person in Wales'' or ''any of the purposes in England'' or ''any of the purposes in Wales''. I can think of at least three interpretations, and I am not being paid for that. Imagine how many a lawyer could come up with.

Stephen Timms: It is apparent from the beginning of subsection (1) that giving, or making arrangements for giving, financial assistance needs to be in relation either to England or Wales. I accept that that is not the meaning that comes to mind on first reading the subsection, but on reflection the hon. Gentleman will see that that is the import of the words.

Win Griffiths: I call Mr. Turner.

Andrew Turner: On this occasion, Mr. Griffiths, you kindly called me before I had even risen, let alone caught your eye.
 The Minister is saying that the Secretary of State may give or make arrangements for the giving of financial assistance in relation to England, or the National Assembly for Wales may give or make arrangements for the giving of such assistance in relation to Wales. My honest interpretation is that that is not the meaning. What does ''give'' mean? Does it mean that the Secretary of State will give the financial assistance in England? That would not prevent someone from using the financial assistance to buy an independent education in Argentina. It does not even mean that someone could not give money to a Uruguayan to buy financial assistance in Argentina.

Stephen Timms: I think it is apparent that giving money to a Uruguayan to purchase education in Argentina could not be described as being ''in relation to England'' or ''in relation to Wales''. I have taken skilled legal advice on the point and I can assure the Committee that the provision has the meaning that I have assigned to it.

Andrew Turner: On the basis that I may return to the matter later, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 165, in page 9, line 18, at end insert--
 (6a) The promotion of and provision of courses leading to proficiency in written and spoken English of persons of all ages.'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 172, in page 9, line 35, at end insert—
'(c) academic education (including provision of education for highly able children).'.
 No. 173, in, page 9, line 35, at end insert— 
'(cc) provision of educational services for children with special educational needs.'.

Andrew Turner: This amendment was tabled following certain comments by the Home Secretary, but that was not the only reason. I worked for the London borough of Southwark for a while, and one of our problems was the need to educate a wide range of people in the English language. I want to probe the Government on whether they believe that education in written and spoken English for people of all ages is important, and whether the Minister would consider giving assistance for that.

Graham Brady: I rise to speak principally to amendments Nos. 172 and 173, which seek to improve the clarity and focus of the provision. They are a complementary couplet of amendments. Amendment No. 172 relates to children with special educational needs because of their exceptionally high ability--known in the jargon as gifted and talented children. Amendment No. 173 refers to the more usual definition of special educational needs. The two amendments seek to make it explicit in the Bill that the clause can apply to those groups.
 Ministers may say that the provision is unnecessary, just as they said that it was unnecessary to legislate for the provision of education credits because the Bill already allows for that. Subsection (3) includes certain elements in its definition of education. I assume that the list is not intended to be exclusive, because it defines education as including 
''vocational training (including the preparation of young people for employment in general), and . . . social and physical training (including the promotion of the development of young children), but does not include higher education, and 'educational' shall be construed accordingly''. 
For the purposes of the clause, therefore, two types of education are included and higher education is excluded. Amendments Nos. 172 and 173 seek to establish whether ''education'' might also include academic education, and the provision of education for highly able children and for children with special educational needs. By partially defining a key term in what is potentially the most important clause in the Bill, rather than going the whole hog and offering an all-encompassing definition, the subsection gives rise to a potential danger. 
 The amendments attempt to probe the Government's intentions, and I offer them to the Minister in the anticipation that he will say that the matters to which I referred are already dealt with in the definition of education in clause 13(3). If so, I ask him to explain the precise parameters. An intelligible, sensible definition would be for ''education'' to constitute anything relating to children of compulsory school age, or to those in further education. However, to exclude higher education, apart from two specific elements, might lead to the exclusion of other matters, and in that regard I look to the Minister for a little clarification.

Chris Grayling: I want to raise a couple of related points. In the context of the Bill as a whole, I find the phraseology in the clause completely baffling. It sums up the all too frequent examples of bad drafting that we have tried to point out to the Government. The clause states:
''In this section— 
 ''education'' . . . does not include higher education''. 
The title of part 2 is ''Financial Assistance for Education and Childcare'', but as I have said, ''education'' does not include higher education. However, the purpose of subsection (2)(c) is to enable 
''any person to undertake any course of education, or any course of higher education, provided by an institution within the further education sector''. 
How is it possible for ''education'' not to include higher education when the clause specifically refers to a 
''course of higher education, provided by an institution within the further education sector''? 
It does not make sense. 
 If there is no clear answer to that, surely it is an example of poor drafting. When the Opposition, in a constructive spirit—that is how the discussions should be pursued—come up with sensible word changes that are designed to enhance the quality of this legislation, 
 surely the Government should not refuse dogmatically to consider them and use their whipped vote to resist them. 
 I should like to commend the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. Our society is becoming more cosmopolitan and we are welcoming more people from overseas. We have a proud tradition of welcoming political refugees to the United Kingdom, and that tradition has certainly been continued in recent years. In order to ensure equality of opportunity for all those who live in our society, from whatever background, it is important to focus on ensuring that we maximise every child's knowledge of the English language and on providing them with the opportunities that they need for the future. [Interruption] As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight rightly points out from a sedentary position, that should apply to every adult as well. For every citizen in this country, a command of the English language is an essential pre-requisite to academic and professional success. 
 Therefore, I commend this sensible addition to the legislation. We are simply establishing a signpost for our schools—for our education system—to ensure that equality of opportunity is provided to everyone in this country. No matter what the background or circumstances, we must make sure that we are at least providing a real focus on building expertise in the English language. We must deliver the right kind of opportunity for the future.

Ivan Lewis: I do not think that we disagree with the objectives of the Opposition's amendments. We share those objectives. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West for giving the answer as well as the question. He is absolutely right. We do not believe that by being specific about written and spoken English, about academic education of highly able children or about educational services for children with special needs, in any way adds to the definition of education that is covered in the legislation. In fact, there is probably an argument that it could have a perverse affect in that anything not included in the list is regarded as not having the same importance or the same priority as the specific issues that Opposition Members have chosen to include in the list, which is inevitably selective. So, although we do not disagree with the objective, we do not believe that the amendments add any value to the existing legislation.

Graham Brady: The Minister makes our case for us. If including something specifically complicates the issue and implies different priorities or that other things that are not listed are not included, is that not then the effect of subsections (3)(a) and (b)? By specifically including vocational training, and social and physical training, the Minister is implying an order of priorities in precisely the way that he described.

Ivan Lewis: There are specific references there, in situations where there may be ambiguity and confusion. It would not necessarily be accepted as the norm, so where those have been included, it is for that purpose. However, if we move towards extending that
 to a selective list of additions, what are we saying about other equally important issues that are not part of the list that Opposition Members have sought to add to the legislation. We simply do not believe that the amendment adds any value to the legislation. In fact, we believe that it poses a risk.

Graham Brady: In the few seconds remaining —
 It being Seven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June] and the Orders of the Committee [11, 13 and 18 December], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. 
 Amendment negatived. 
 Clauses 13 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Sitting suspended.